Using the same workaround, the government can ensure that employees of companies such as Hobby Lobby still get the contraception coverage they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act, says Sara Rosenbaum, chair of the health policy school at George Washington University. "The only difference is that the employer is not exposed to the cost," she says.

That's all that matters to Hobby Lobby. They just wanted to save a buck.

Lando Lincoln:Using the same workaround, the government can ensure that employees of companies such as Hobby Lobby still get the contraception coverage they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act, says Sara Rosenbaum, chair of the health policy school at George Washington University. "The only difference is that the employer is not exposed to the cost," she says.

That's all that matters to Hobby Lobby. They just wanted to save a buck.

Exactly... There's only one god these shameless hypocrites worship. The Almighty Dollar.

raerae1980:I have to admit, the heavy amount of gloating from conservatives hurts. Not because "my team lost" so to speak, but because I don't understand how ANYONE can be happy with this ruling.

You have to be the very narrow variety of male, white, straight, and Christian to consider this a good thing. For those types, this is one more step towards making apartheid with them on top a reality.

Sergeant Grumbles:raerae1980: I have to admit, the heavy amount of gloating from conservatives hurts. Not because "my team lost" so to speak, but because I don't understand how ANYONE can be happy with this ruling.

You have to be the very narrow variety of male, white, straight, and Christian to consider this a good thing. For those types, this is one more step towards making apartheid with them on top a reality.

And wait until the first Muslim-owned company denies contraceptives.... then it'll be "OMG, Sharia Law!!"

Lando Lincoln:Using the same workaround, the government can ensure that employees of companies such as Hobby Lobby still get the contraception coverage they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act, says Sara Rosenbaum, chair of the health policy school at George Washington University. "The only difference is that the employer is not exposed to the cost," she says.

That's all that matters to Hobby Lobby. They just wanted to save a buck.

I dunno. I can actually see the insurance company charging more to implement this policy, since they eliminate some choices that might be cheaper than the ones covered, plus there's substantial additional paperwork to craft a new type of goofy policy just for Hobby Lobby.

Sergeant Grumbles:raerae1980: I have to admit, the heavy amount of gloating from conservatives hurts. Not because "my team lost" so to speak, but because I don't understand how ANYONE can be happy with this ruling.

You have to be the very narrow variety of male, white, straight, and Christian to consider this a good thing. For those types, this is one more step towards making apartheid with them on top a reality.

Still, it breaks my heart seeing other females cheer this on. Its like they, themselves, are clueless about the issues. And they shouldn't be!!!

After reading this article, I'm inspired. If the government does decide to cover those women impacted by the SCOTUS ruling, that means government and health-care will be even more intertwined. Then, if new challenges to the ACA arise and more exceptions are granted, it will drive still more people onto the so-called "government teat." As people rely more and more on the government for their healthcare, they'll begin to think, "Hey, maybe government-run health-care isn't so bad after all," and BOOM! Single-payer.

Using your health insurance IS paying for it yourself. Health insurance is not a gift from your employer; it's compensation that you earn by doing your job. Your employer should not be able to tell you what to do with your health insurance any more than they can tell you how to spend your paycheck or what you can do on your vacation days.

Tomahawk513:After reading this article, I'm inspired. If the government does decide to cover those women impacted by the SCOTUS ruling, that means government and health-care will be even more intertwined. Then, if new challenges to the ACA arise and more exceptions are granted, it will drive still more people onto the so-called "government teat." As people rely more and more on the government for their healthcare, they'll begin to think, "Hey, maybe government-run health-care isn't so bad after all," and BOOM! Single-payer.

The Supreme Court is basically saying that government should be the solution to the problem in this case. I'm not sure all the Conservatives jumping for joy right now realize this.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:They have contraceptive coverage, they have "the pill" they have 16 out 20 of the options! You just have to get rid of the egg before the dirty little sperm touches it.

How expensive is the morning after pill? And are there women out there that need it so often that it factors into their thinking when it comes to employment?!

My friend doesn't use hormonal birth control, it makes her feel like crap. She always used condoms, but kept plan b around in case of a condom breaking. She only had to use it once over a few years, but having it may have saved her an unwanted pregnancy.

Pincy:Tomahawk513: After reading this article, I'm inspired. If the government does decide to cover those women impacted by the SCOTUS ruling, that means government and health-care will be even more intertwined. Then, if new challenges to the ACA arise and more exceptions are granted, it will drive still more people onto the so-called "government teat." As people rely more and more on the government for their healthcare, they'll begin to think, "Hey, maybe government-run health-care isn't so bad after all," and BOOM! Single-payer.

The Supreme Court is basically saying that government should be the solution to the problem in this case. I'm not sure all the Conservatives jumping for joy right now realize this.

This may turn out to be a big moment for the Democrat* Party. For one, this decision may motivate Dem voters to get out and vote, and two, what you said.

Tomahawk513:Pincy: Tomahawk513: After reading this article, I'm inspired. If the government does decide to cover those women impacted by the SCOTUS ruling, that means government and health-care will be even more intertwined. Then, if new challenges to the ACA arise and more exceptions are granted, it will drive still more people onto the so-called "government teat." As people rely more and more on the government for their healthcare, they'll begin to think, "Hey, maybe government-run health-care isn't so bad after all," and BOOM! Single-payer.

The Supreme Court is basically saying that government should be the solution to the problem in this case. I'm not sure all the Conservatives jumping for joy right now realize this.

This may turn out to be a big moment for the Democrat* Party. For one, this decision may motivate Dem voters to get out and vote, and two, what you said.

SundaesChild:It's $50. So not cheap, but cheaper than a surgical abortion or raising a rugrat.

You forgot the multiplier. How many times a year do you think this is needed? Once? Monthly? Weekly? Do you think there are women out there that think "wow I'd love to work for Hobby Lobby but I really need help buy all those morning after pills"?

Or the flip of the coin this was about the government forcing their beliefs on the owners. This is not about what the employees will or will not have it's about what the employer will or will not subsidize. These products will not be kept away from employees! They can still buy them, they just can't use their policies to pay for them.

Geotpf:Lando Lincoln: Using the same workaround, the government can ensure that employees of companies such as Hobby Lobby still get the contraception coverage they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act, says Sara Rosenbaum, chair of the health policy school at George Washington University. "The only difference is that the employer is not exposed to the cost," she says.

That's all that matters to Hobby Lobby. They just wanted to save a buck.

I dunno. I can actually see the insurance company charging more to implement this policy, since they eliminate some choices that might be cheaper than the ones covered, plus there's substantial additional paperwork to craft a new type of goofy policy just for Hobby Lobby.

Yup. I work in the Self-Funded area of Health Insurance. Currently, we can accommodate a group that wants to remove abortion services from their coverage but we can't remove contraception services as that involves the employee's drug card (and an outside vendor).I can see the nerds in Actuarial tacking on a special fee for a special "no contraception" drug card. No problem.